« Reid Endorses July 1 Ultimatum For Super-Delegates | Home | Report: Obama Raised More Than $30 Million In March »
Teachers Union Drops Over $300,000 On Pennsylvania Radio Ad For Hillary
The American Federation of Teachers is on the air in Pennsylvania, running this independent radio ad for Hillary Clinton:
The ad buy will run through the day before the primary, and cost just under $330,000. For her part, Hillary has been needing the outside help — thanks to his big advantage in cash on hand for the primary, he's been outspending her five to one on Pennsylvania TV ads.
Advertisement
What a waste of money, really. This could have gone to a much better, positive end cause.
April 1, 2008 5:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Drops" is singularly apt.
Can anyone recall a more recklessly self-destructive act than a union spending huge sums of money taking on the prohibitive favorite for the nomination? They’re not using these ads to push their issues – there’s no mention of an issue anywhere in the ad. They’re not simply building up Hillary’s credentials, they’re positioning her as the only candidate who can take on John McCain. And they’re running them in advance of a Democratic primary.
I understand why teachers’ unions don’t like Obama – he’s shown a willingness to embrace heterodox views on educational reform. Some of the positions he’s embracing aren’t popular with their members. Moreover, most teachers in this country are middle-aged women – and so their members are predisposed demographically to support Hillary, anyway. But by doubling down on their support for Hillary, long after most of the unions that endorsed her have dialed back their own efforts on her behalf, they’re placing all their eggs in one basket. When she loses (and lose she will) they’ll be faced with the prospect of a President Obama. And not only won’t he be beholden to them for their support, he’ll have every incentive to undercut their power.
Now how, exactly, does this expenditure further the interests of their members?
April 1, 2008 5:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
The questions you raise go to how the Unions endorsement process works and indeed how the Union is structured. Top down structure locals can suffer from myopic vision of the leaders as well as completely democratic locals can suffer from an abdication of leadership on the part of officers. Who knows except a Pennsylvania member in this case? I do agree that at this point Labor spending should be directed towards GE efforts at this point.
April 1, 2008 11:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
what with the state of pay of teaches, I hardly think the union is spending wisely, considering Clinton has only a slight chance of winning the nomination.
April 1, 2008 5:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
thanks to his big advantage in cash on hand for the primary, he's been outspending her five to one on Pennsylvania TV ads.
pardon my nit-picking, but you need a noun before you use the pronoun "he."
April 1, 2008 5:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Apparently these teachers need a remedial math lesson.
April 1, 2008 5:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
How much air time will they be purchasing on the program of Hillary supporter, The Big Fat Pillbilly?.
April 1, 2008 5:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
makes sense to me that the teachers' union would support hillary. she's certainly spent more time working on education-related issues than obama or mccain...
April 1, 2008 6:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
She has also worked longer on solving the health care crisis. She has not accomplished much. Just spun her wheels and her claims of what she accomplished.
Working smart, and getting the job done is far more important than the Hillary approach of working for a long time on it, and never getting it done.
April 1, 2008 6:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
hillary has gotten a lot done on both education and health care.
what has obama accomplished on these issues? i googled it and couldn't find much (just what he believes, but not what he's done.)
apparently, the teachers' union thinks hillary will be the more effective leader on education...
April 1, 2008 6:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
What did Hillary accomplish on health care?
It is well established that she was not even elected when Schip passed, she did not do a think on the FMLA and she was a colossal failure with the universal healthcare policy that set it back ten years.
April 1, 2008 7:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary was instrumental in designing and championing the State Children's Health Insurance Program, which has provided millions of children with health insurance. She battled the big drug companies to force them to test their drugs for children and to make sure all kids get the immunizations they need through the Vaccines for Children Program. Immunization rates dramatically improved after the program launched.
In the Senate, Hillary passed legislation to track the health status of our troops so that conditions like Gulf War Syndrome would no longer be misdiagnosed. She is an original sponsor of legislation that expanded health benefits to members of the National Guard and Reserves. Hillary has worked to expand quality affordable health care to more Americans. She worked to strengthen the Children's Health Insurance Program, which increased coverage for children in low income and working families. She authored legislation that has been enacted to improve quality and lower the cost of prescription drugs and to protect our food supply from bioterrorism. She sponsored legislation to increase America's commitment to fighting the global HIV/AIDS crisis, and is now leading the fight for expanded use of information technology in the health care system to decrease administrative costs, lower premiums, and reduce medical errors.
One of Hillary's proudest achievements has been her work to ensure the safety of prescription drugs for children, with legislation now included in the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act.
April 1, 2008 8:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did you cut and paste this directly from Hillary campaign materials?
Becuase the SCHIP thing has been thoroughly debunked; one of the reasons Kennedy snubbed her is because she took credit for that bill, which she had absolutely nothing to do with.
Better shills, please.
April 1, 2008 9:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
factcheck.org disagrees with both you, brewmn61 and GSB27 (below) regarding SCHIP...
on March 18, 2008, they write:
"We review the record and conclude that she deserves plenty of credit, both for the passage of the SCHIP legislation and for pushing outreach efforts to translate the law into reality."
they go on to explain that kennedy gave Hillary plenty of credit too on more than one occasion until he endorsed Obama when he suddenly refused to comment (funny how that works.)
for example, factcheck quotes an AP article in which Sen. Edward M. Kennedy said on Oct. 6, 2007: "The children's health program wouldn't be in existence today if we didn't have Hillary pushing for it from the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue."
factcheck seems to be extremely well-documented, so please go check it out for yourself; here's the link:
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/giving_hillary_credit_for_schip.html
i have noticed that Sen. Obama has had numerous opportunities to call Hillary on her SCHIP "lies" at the debates, etc., but smart fellow that he is, he has not done that...
good thing he's not taking his pointers from his supporters here at TPM...
and please don't call me a shill. i was asked to provide some of Hillary's health care achievements, so yes, i did go to her website, but i went to the trouble to find the info, edit it a bit and post it here for the benefit of those who challenged me while disparging Hillary (of course)...
April 1, 2008 9:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Unfortunately, Hillary had no involvement in the design of SCHIP and it is highly questionable if she had any involvement in passing the legislation. The legislation was modeled after a program in MA and Orin Hatch and Ted Kennedy did the designing and work in getting the bill passed. This is just another example of Hillary lying about her record.
As for the pediatric legislation, I have no knowledge of what is within the legislation, I will point out though that the legislation had a negative impact on the desired outcome. My prior employer attempted to argue to have a stricter label put on its medication for pediatrics. The issue was that it was only meant for infants and not young children. The FDA argued against the change and delayed the change utilizing this legislation and others.
April 1, 2008 9:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
please see my post above regarding SCHIP as it doesn't seem to be the case that Hillary is "lying"... unless you can come up with superior documentation to factcheck, i'll just go on the assumption that you were misled by the anti-Hillary spin all over the internet.
on the second issue, it sounds like the problem is due to the bone-headed FDA (a frequent problem during the bush administration.)
April 1, 2008 9:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/10/06/clinton_claims_credit_for_child_program/
April 2, 2008 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with Benjoya Hussein.
The leading candidate for the Democratic nomination warrants a freakin' name. Has Obama been demonized to the point that he no longer has one?
When you start referring to Obama as "it," we'll really pull out the analysis.
April 1, 2008 6:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh ugh. What a depressing downer ad. The music was practically dirge-like, and a couple of the speakers' voices are just whiny and annoying. It makes me want to go put my head in the oven.
April 1, 2008 6:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you are an Obama supporter, my guess is Hillary wouldn't stop you from doing it. In fact, it would be "excellent news... for Hillary."
April 1, 2008 9:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great day for Clinton and she punked the corporate media with a very funny April Fools joke.
She is going to make a great President.
God bless America!
April 1, 2008 6:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
re: "She is going to make a great President."
Just like Rocky Balboa, she's gonna fight to the end and win it. Er, uh, wait... Don't hold your breath on that one.
April 1, 2008 6:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow. The soundtrack music alone must have cost them a hundred bucks. I love that technique where they went from a minor key (talking about Bush and McCain) to a major key (talking about Hillary). This is real teacher's union-quality stuff. They should have ended on a Maj6 chord, though. It would have given it more of a Lennon/McCartney feel.
April 1, 2008 6:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
This nation doesn't need a fighter whose solutions create polarization and gridlock.
Our country needs a leader who can set a strategic agenda that will not drive the bus into the ditch.
We may need to fight to get out of a ditch but we need leadership that keeps of out of the ditch in the first place.
Hopefully the Obama team will respond with 'judgment to lead'
April 1, 2008 6:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Precisely the difference between Hillary and Obama: Obama wants to lead the country. Hillary wants to run it.
April 1, 2008 6:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you compare where they stand on education issues, there actually is some day light between Obama and Hillary.
(1) He wants to reform NCLB, she wants to end it. (Most educators will score that one for Hillary due to a huge dislike of NCLB.) However, his "reform" sounds a lot like "end" to me. He should be more specific, IMO.
(2) He has a 0-5 program vs. her 4-5 program. Some children no doubt need the 0-3 stuff (for example, children with developmental disorders), but it does come off as a bit over-reaching.
(3) She includes nurse home visitation for teaching parenting skills, although that might be similar to Obama's 0-3 stuff.
(4) Obama stresses math and science education (big one for me, but I know not everyone has these priorities)
(5) Slightly different programs for dealing with disadvantaged kids.
(6) Obama also includes several points for dealing with teacher recruitment, preparation, and retention. As a former public school teacher myself, I'm very aware of retention problems.
IMO, there's no clear "winner" there, as I think it depends a lot on where one's priorities are.
April 1, 2008 6:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
thanks, ben... that's a good post. i wish there were more posts that actually had something to say about the issues without all the bashing that is always going on.
April 1, 2008 7:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, Ken's Dad. I, too, appreciate your voice of reason, even if you support the wrong candidate. ;)
April 1, 2008 9:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ben: is there *nothing* you don't feel guilty about?
Here is the deal: if we had a science literate society, we wouldn't have voodoo arguments about critical science issues:
a) impending energy shortage
b) global warming and relationship to weather
c) stem-cell and medical research
If we had a mathemetical literate society, we would have people who could understand things like:
a) compound interest
One way to end predatory lending is to have people smart enough not to get swindled. One way to end credit card debt is for people to understand that their monthly payments aren't intended to have them pay off their bill.
Think of it this way: you will be teaching people to fish.
No one is proposing teaching AI in high school!
April 1, 2008 10:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's not guilt—it's just acknowledging that what you and I find important is not what everyone finds important.
I agree completely (of course) on the importance of teaching science and math.
I disagree on not teaching AI. Why wouldn't we teach AI in the high school? (I'm being quite serious, although since that's my research area, I'm also being quite biased.)
April 1, 2008 10:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
April 2, 2008 12:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're misunderstanding me. Of course it's important to everyone. However, it's not important to how people vote, in the sense that if people don't think it's important, it won't be a factor in how they vote. I hope I've made that clear, but if not, it just demonstrates that English skills are also important. :P (Just to be clear, that's a dig on my communication skills and not your reading skills.)
April 2, 2008 5:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Geez, this blog is pathetic. All this great news for Clinton, a Dem , depresses you. Your hatred is clouding your judgement and you should let it go trolls.
I just heard Dean on CNN calling out McCain on his flip flops of basic issues.
Let the hate go, we are going to win.
April 1, 2008 6:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary's a Dem? When did that happen?
April 1, 2008 6:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
re: "Let the hate go"
You start first by losing that photo you use that you think detracts from Obama as a candidate.
You might see that pic as embarrassing, and no doubt you are not alone as the public tilts toward the more racist end of the spectrum, but many, many others see two successful African American men smiling and feel proud that our country continues to make progess regarding equality (although as Obama, Wright and others would note, we are not there yet).
GotaLife, use an avatar that is not intended as an attack on a Dem candidate and then you are free to talk about letting hate go without reeking like a stinking hypocrite.
April 1, 2008 6:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here is another joke:
Another big oil dog and pony show in Washington.
They will do nothing and here is why:
“Obama accused of using false advertising after accepting money from big oil interests :
“It’s unfortunate that Senator Obama is using false advertising to explain why he can be trusted to do something about energy prices. Senator Obama says he doesn’t take campaign contributions from oil companies but the reality is that Exxon, Shell, and others are among his donors. I wonder if they’ll fix the ad.”
Now that is funny. Hey, at least he told the truth and spewed they had no short term solution.
Funny until you fill up your tank. You get what you vote for.
God bless America!
April 1, 2008 6:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
re: Funny until you fill up your tank. You get what you vote for.
Obama is at no more fault in what you pay at the pump today than is Hillary. Both are Senators currently. You do understand that don't you?
April 1, 2008 7:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've gotta agree with twirling fartknocker. You use that photo as your avatar and then you tell Obama supporters they've got to let the hate go. I'll make a deal with you: you let the hypocritical bullshit go, and then we'll talk.
April 2, 2008 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
No offense, but is that a PA accent, the slurred speech pattern of half of these "citizens"?
Is it supposed to sound like "regular" folk?
April 1, 2008 6:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
The "slurring" that you hear is a soft accented Central PA dialect.
April 1, 2008 11:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
At least they are attacking McCain - that's refreshing
April 1, 2008 6:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
The only time I have ever seen a woman get as in your face as HRC is doing, and the snide comments said with a smile, is during a divorce discussing child support. In fact, lucky for Bill she didn't go there, she is ruthless.
April 1, 2008 6:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I had no problem with any union that supported Hillary, but at this point, if I were in that teachers union, I think it would be time to remove some of it's leadership. What a waste of funds.
April 1, 2008 7:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm a high school history teacher in Chicago, female, and 44. I support Obama. Many of my colleagues do as well. If you think any teacher union truly represents teachers thoughts and opinions, I have news for you. The unions (Local, or AFT) are corrupt, and dont care about the kids, or the teachers.
April 1, 2008 8:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
The one thing that hit me hardest when I went through orientation was the review process. It went something like this: while you're teaching someone comes into your room and evaluates your teaching based off a set of criteria (this part was good). You get evaluated at least 3 times a year (also good). If you fail an evaluation, they'll evaluate you again - up to a total of 5 evaluations. I.e., you must pass at least 3 out of 5 evaluations. OK, I can see that as we all have our off days. Now here was where it got crazy: if you fail 3 or more evaluations you get put on some kind of lame "probation" (I can't remember what they called it, if anything), but nothing happens. If you do that 3 (or maybe it was 5) years in a row, then your pay rate is frozen: no more automatic pay raises for you! (I'm thinking at this point, termination should be in order.) However, if after having your pay frozen for an indeterminate amount of time you do manage to squeak by with 3 out of 5, then your pay jumps back up to what it would've been if you'd been passing all along. I wasn't the only teacher who thought that we shouldn't be coddling the incompetent teachers in our midst.
The real way to solve problems (at least in our district) would've been to make the classroom size significantly smaller. That's more important than raising salaries, IMO, as I think that stress is a bigger reason for leaving than pay.
April 1, 2008 9:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
another great post by Ben...
nice to hear how the system works (or actually, doesn't work!)
this is becoming the mutual admiration society (a pleasant break from "your candidate sucks!")
April 1, 2008 9:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
My mom has been a teacher for about 30 years, my dad teaches part time and works in admin at a college full time, and my sister started teaching first grade last fall. Pay is a MAJOR factor in what causes schools to have poor teachers, pay causes so much stress since teachers are forced to put so much effort into something and get paid for jack squat in return. This causes stress since having to work very hard on something and getting paid very little breeds unhappiness. The pay also stops many people from entering into teaching who other wise might of. Raise the pay checks of teachers and more people will become teachers, if there are more teachers in the market then you have more options to pick from. If their are more options for schools then they can pick more qualified teachers, and also be able to cut those who aren't.
Its quite simple - it may not be instant but it will work.
Raising the paycheck = more teachers
More teachers = more competition
more competition = schools getting better teachers
For something so important i would think that we would want people who are very qualified to be teachers but if you pay them as much as a janitor then don't expect people to be jumping all over the job.
April 1, 2008 9:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Only up to a point. When I left teaching, I went to a job that paid 3 times as much, but pay had nothing to do with why I left. It was the stress. My wife and I have always been very frugal, and would be quite fine living off a teacher's salary (at the time she was finishing up her BS in Psychology). However, the stress really, really got to me. I had 30+ kids in a room, where several of the kids were literally there as conditions of their parole. I wanted to teach, not to be some sort of sergeant major.
Smaller classes=less stress
Less stress=better retention
Better retention=more competition
Better retention+more competition=better teachers
This is one reason why I think that most education issues should be solved at a local level. The problems for one locality can be very different from the problems for a different locality, and even where they're the same, the solutions can be different.
April 1, 2008 10:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Higher paycheck = more teachers
School with more money = bigger schools and more resources.
More teachers and more resources = ability for smaller classes.
Why i agree that smaller classes would be better for classes i don't think you can accomplish this with out more money for the schools. For GOD SAKES my sisters school cant even afford good books for her first graders and she has to buy so many supplies for her class.
Also on a side note i would love to see more money and better standards on schools food system, they feed kids crap for lunch.
April 1, 2008 11:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
*While i agree
April 1, 2008 11:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, there's no doubt that more money would be involved, regardless. Taking money away from teachers in order to create smaller classes would obviously be a non-starter.
Given a fixed amount of extra money, however, is that money better spent on hiring extra teachers in order to reduce class size or on giving existing teachers pay raises? The answer is: it depends. In some cases one, in some cases the other, and in some cases both. (And, of course, in some cases there might be other priorities, like books.) Where I taught at, I'd spend almost every dime on creating smaller classes. Most of the teachers we had were just fine, but would've been better if they didn't have to put up with large classes with many disruptive kids in them.
April 2, 2008 5:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am so in agreement with you, Ben. The evaluation process is pretty sad. But you also have administrators who are terrible managers. Where I live - its a corrupt school board in a corrupt city.
NCLB means I cant teach content for 6 weeks, but instead - reading comp. test prep. All of March and April. No history. Just test prep quiz after test prep quiz, day after day, week after week. No breaks. No allowances. No showing my kids Barack Obama's historic speech on race. Thinking is forbidden! Administration coming around with clipboards checking to make sure we are all test prepping every day. Imagine you are a teenager, and its ALL you do every period, day in and day out. And you see that your teachers are being watched and checked. Everyone is stressed out.
Meanwhile, last night another Chicago Public School student, from our school, is shot. He was walking in the park. He is alive right now, so it hasnt been on the news.
I could go on here, but I think you get the gist.
So
April 1, 2008 9:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
As a big believer in Mom's advice that "you're judged by the company you keep",I find it hard to believe any well-informed union member could support Hillary. Her campaign guru is Mark Penn, whose PR firm bragged about it's union-busting prowess before he took the Hillary gig. Combined with her NAFTA cheer-leading (Misspoke?)this would seem to rule out any union support. Gotta go, Incoming Sniper Fire!!!!
April 1, 2008 7:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't really have a problem with the ad, other than it being pretty transparent in making every single argument she's making as to why she should still be in the race, and appears to be making the argument that if she goes the distance to the convention, that's sufficient reason to give her the nomination. That's what all the "fighter" stuff is about. But other than that - or should I say including that - it's pretty much boilerplate Clinton campaign arguments regarding why they should win even though they lost.
Independent? Not so much.
April 1, 2008 8:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I like the repetition of the word "Fighter". "We need a fighter"..."A fighter"...."She's a fighter".
So was John Edwards. Where are HIS boxing gloves these days?
We all know Hillary's a fighter. So what?!
Does our country need a fighter? Isnt' John McCain a fighter? What good will it do Democrats if Hillary knocks John down and he gets back up again and knocks her down?
Obama's message is one of unity. He's a uniter. Is anyone else trying to run as a uniter? Can John McCain run as a uniter?
Once again, I just don't get it.
April 1, 2008 8:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Although the uniter thing is good, unfortunately it's been a wee bit corrupted by the last person who claimed to be a uniter (Bush). So, I wouldn't be overusing that term, that's all.
Otherwise, I agree completely.
April 1, 2008 8:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
D'oh! Why do I keep doing that?? Uniter = bad. Decider = bad. Fighter = bad.
Okay, how 'bout "Change"? He's the "Change" candidate!!
Oh, wait.
Never mind. I'll just go with my favorite:
Obama-Webb 2008!!!
(Thanks, Ben, I owe you one)
April 1, 2008 9:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
And I donated to PA schools and other BO supporters have given in BO's name close to $100000 to PA public schools on donorschoose.org just for a good cause. I find that much more refreshing and benevolent than the way the Teacher's union has squandered money over this.
April 1, 2008 8:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have no evidence (other than stuff like I am about to mention has been done in some local elections that I know about) but I was wondering if the teachers union really put up the money directly.
I am wondering if someone gave them some money and maybe a little extra for them in exchange for doing the ad.
A techers union is usually a nonprofit and they may be able to conceal a "donation" for quite some time- until after the election.
Again, I have to evidence, but something similar happened in our local elections.
April 2, 2008 12:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
As a big believer in Mom's advice that "you're judged by the company you keep",I find it hard to believe any well-informed union member could support Hillary. Her campaign guru is Mark Penn,
Ah yes, the campaign staff. Such a lovely bunch.
Belies practically every damn thing Clinton says. I'd not vote for her just on the basis of her staff, and I'm not kidding. These people are losers.
I don't want to lose another election.
April 1, 2008 8:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow did they mention anything about education in this ad.
April 1, 2008 9:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
As a product of the PA public school system, I have seen the good and the bad. Overall, the teacher's union is a racket that needs to be overhauled. If you thought the DNC has issues, deal with the union. PA is littered with small underperforming schools that should be merged into larger school districts in order for the children to get the resources and attention they need. Often school boards and the teacher union have argued against such mergers because it would mean that the teachers and board members would lose their fiefdoms. I have personally watched friends suffer from this year on year. Next, the teachers union is a staunch supporter of under performing teachers. Friends of mine that have gone to school to be teachers have had to move to other states since their appears to be limited teaching opportunities in PA. The issue is that a lack luster teacher that is not pulling his or her weight won't leave and can't be pushed out because of the union.
I'm not saying all the teachers are bad. Many of mine were great growing up and I still keep in touch wiht them. The issue is that these teachers have to suffer with dead weight that the union won't let go.
April 1, 2008 9:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
So true - so many people are just "hanging out", waiting until its time for retirement. We should start a whole new thread swapping stories about schools.
April 1, 2008 9:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
UFT, wasting my money... Time to vote for new local leadership.
April 1, 2008 9:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just want to thank all of the teachers and families posting here. My son is very successful through a public school system due to dedicated people such as yourselves. The pay is horrible. The people for the most part are amazing.
April 1, 2008 9:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, thats really nice of you. : )
April 1, 2008 10:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
In all this PA chaos, I truly wonder if Richard Mellon Scaife by "endorsing" HRC is playing the devious repug game of trying to extend the Dem primary process as long as possible to benefit Mcsame.
April 1, 2008 10:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Terrible commercial:
a) repetitive "fighter" thing -- as others have pointed out
b) "she has solutions to our problems" -- can we be any more generic
c) downer, sad tone
I have a feeling that this is her "Statue of Liberty" commercial -- if you are feeling bummed out and victimized, it might suck you in.
I would be pissed if I were in the Union. It's one thing for the Union to endorse -- quite another for them to spend money on a candidate, and especially in a primary season.
I wish SNL would do a parody on one of her commercials and insert "for herself" every time the phrase "she's a fighter" comes up.
You'll note if that Hillary gives no particular vision of America in this commercial. And this is radio -- which most people listen to in the car. I'd switch the channel as soon as I heard the droning music.
April 1, 2008 10:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
The two candidates differ on NCLB on education.
Could be why these teachers want Clinton.
Besides being a fighter, we have established you want a uniter which w spewed but you are buying it again.
April 1, 2008 10:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
We have established one candidate, the woman no less, is a fighter. After watching the other candidate bowl a 37 he clearly looks more like a chicken. Probably why he won't allow the Florida vote to count and is blocking the revote in Michigan. He is what you call a bit limp wristed.
April 1, 2008 10:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gotalife is correct that once again “It’s unfortunate that Senator Obama is using false advertising to explain why he can be trusted to do something about energy prices. Senator Obama says he doesn’t take campaign contributions from oil companies but the reality is that Exxon, Shell, and others are among his donors. I wonder if they’ll fix the ad.”
Obama has no clue where he stands on his own issues. Of course Obama was in love with Dick Cheney and his Big Oil Energy Bill to rape average Joe America and voted for it.
After watching Obama bowl a 37 it is clear he is way to poofy to ever be Prez.
April 1, 2008 10:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know that list of Obama lies you compiled is growing daily. Good thing there is not a word limiter on this blog.
These Obama trolls actually think they will not need a fighter and the gop are just going to hand over all their power to a lying, radical, liberal.
Clinton punked the corporate media today with a bowling challenge for April Fools.
Her performance was brilliant as usual.
April 1, 2008 11:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Christ, what kind of a Goddamn Republican piece of crap are you?
April 2, 2008 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know what is really ironic?
Many of you may be aware of Colbert's 'Donor's Choice' sponsorship, wherein Pennsylvania Schools benefit from those who visit the site and 'vote' for Obama or Clinton via donation.
As of just a few seconds ago (11:17 PM, Eastern, 04/01/08) Obama supporters had donated more than 6 times as much as Hillary supporters.
Give in honor of Barack Obama
$98,929 1416 19098
Give in honor of Hillary Clinton
$15,712 134 4003
The second number for each is the number of donors, the third is the number of students that will benefit.
Hmm, kind of a slap in the face?
April 1, 2008 11:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do they teach Balkan history?
April 2, 2008 5:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ohhhhh IMPRESSIVE dembillc.
I am used to seeing your semi-racist posts bashing Barack Obama...
It is nice to see you switch to subtle homophobia with your "limp-wristed" comment.
A classy bunch.... you Clinton fans.
April 2, 2008 9:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actual proof that "Every Child Left Behind" has driven the majority of intelligent, educated individuals from the profession.
April 2, 2008 10:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
I suppose by "fighter," she means someone willing to go to war with Iraq for no good reason.
That's one good reason NOT to vote for her. We need someone who will heal, not fight. That one is Obama.
April 2, 2008 11:50 PM | Reply | Permalink